Optional Protocol to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights

Party

Timor-Leste added

• Signature: 24-09-2026
• Reservations / Declarations: No
• Objections: No

Party

Belarus modified

• Renunciation: 08-11-2022
• Termination: 08-02-2023

General information

• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Kingdom part

Netherlands (in Europe)

• Entry into force: 11-03-1979

Netherlands (Bonaire)

• Entry into force: 10-10-2010

Netherlands (Sint Eustatius)

• Entry into force: 10-10-2010

Netherlands (Saba)

• Entry into force: 10-10-2010

Aruba

• Entry into force: 01-01-1986

Curaçao

• Entry into force: 10-10-2010

Sint Maarten

• Entry into force: 10-10-2010

Party

Albania

• Ratification: 04-10-2007 (A)
• Entry into force: 04-01-2008

Algeria

• Ratification: 12-09-1989 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-12-1989

Andorra

• Signature: 05-08-2002
• Ratification: 22-09-2006 (R)
• Entry into force: 22-12-2006

Angola

• Ratification: 10-01-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 10-04-1992

Argentina

• Ratification: 08-08-1986 (A)
• Entry into force: 08-11-1986

Armenia

• Ratification: 23-06-1993 (A)
• Entry into force: 23-09-1993

Australia

• Ratification: 25-09-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-12-1991

Azerbaijan

• Ratification: 27-11-2001 (A)
• Entry into force: 27-02-2002

Barbados

• Ratification: 05-01-1973 (A)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Belarus

• Ratification: 30-09-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 30-12-1992

Belgium

• Ratification: 17-05-1994 (A)
• Entry into force: 17-08-1994

Benin

• Ratification: 12-03-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-06-1992

Bolivia

• Ratification: 12-08-1982 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-11-1982

Bosnia and Herzegovina

• Signature: 01-03-1995
• Ratification: 01-03-1995 (R)
• Entry into force: 01-06-1995

Brazil

• Ratification: 25-09-2009 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-12-2009

Bulgaria

• Ratification: 26-03-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 26-06-1992

Burkina Faso

• Ratification: 04-01-1999 (A)
• Entry into force: 04-04-1999

Cabo Verde

• Ratification: 19-05-2000 (A)
• Entry into force: 19-08-2000

Cambodia

• Signature: 27-09-2004

Cameroon

• Ratification: 27-06-1984 (A)
• Entry into force: 27-09-1984

Canada

• Ratification: 19-05-1976 (A)
• Entry into force: 19-08-1976

Central African Republic

• Ratification: 08-05-1981 (A)
• Entry into force: 08-08-1981

Chad

• Ratification: 09-06-1995 (A)
• Entry into force: 09-09-1995

Colombia

• Signature: 21-12-1966
• Ratification: 29-10-1969 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Costa Rica

• Signature: 19-12-1966
• Ratification: 29-11-1968 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Côte d'Ivoire

• Ratification: 05-03-1997 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-06-1997

Cyprus

• Signature: 19-12-1966
• Ratification: 15-04-1992 (R)
• Entry into force: 15-07-1992

Czech Republic

• Ratification: 22-02-1993 (Su)
• Entry into force: 01-01-1993

Czechoslovakia (<01-01-1993)

• Ratification: 12-03-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-06-1991

Democratic Republic of the Congo

• Ratification: 01-11-1976 (A)
• Entry into force: 01-02-1977

Djibouti

• Ratification: 05-11-2002 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-02-2003

Dominican Republic

• Ratification: 04-01-1978 (A)
• Entry into force: 04-04-1978

Ecuador

• Signature: 04-04-1968
• Ratification: 06-03-1969 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Equatorial Guinea

• Ratification: 25-09-1987 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-12-1987

Estonia

• Ratification: 21-10-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 21-01-1992

Finland

• Signature: 11-12-1967
• Ratification: 19-08-1975 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Gambia, The

• Ratification: 09-06-1988 (A)
• Entry into force: 09-09-1988

Georgia

• Ratification: 03-05-1994 (A)
• Entry into force: 03-08-1994

Ghana

• Signature: 07-09-2000
• Ratification: 07-09-2000 (R)
• Entry into force: 07-12-2000

Greece

• Ratification: 05-05-1997 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-08-1997

Guinea

• Signature: 19-03-1975
• Ratification: 17-06-1993 (R)
• Entry into force: 17-09-1993

Guinea-Bissau

• Signature: 12-09-2000
• Ratification: 24-09-2013 (R)
• Entry into force: 24-12-2013

Honduras

• Signature: 19-12-1966
• Ratification: 07-06-2005 (R)
• Entry into force: 07-09-2005

Hungary

• Ratification: 07-09-1988 (A)
• Entry into force: 07-12-1988

Jamaica

• Signature: 19-12-1966
• Ratification: 03-10-1975 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976
• Renunciation: 23-10-1997
• Termination: 23-01-1998

Kyrgyzstan

• Ratification: 07-10-1994 (A)
• Entry into force: 07-01-1995

Latvia

• Ratification: 22-06-1994 (A)
• Entry into force: 22-09-1994

Lesotho

• Ratification: 06-09-2000 (A)
• Entry into force: 06-12-2000

Liberia

• Signature: 22-09-2004

Libya

• Ratification: 16-05-1989 (A)
• Entry into force: 16-08-1989

Liechtenstein

• Ratification: 10-12-1998 (A)
• Entry into force: 10-03-1999

Lithuania

• Ratification: 20-11-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 20-02-1992

Madagascar

• Signature: 17-09-1969
• Ratification: 21-06-1971 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Malawi

• Ratification: 11-06-1996 (A)
• Entry into force: 11-09-1996

Maldives

• Ratification: 19-09-2006 (A)
• Entry into force: 19-12-2006

Mali

• Ratification: 24-10-2001 (A)
• Entry into force: 24-01-2002

Mauritius

• Ratification: 12-12-1973 (A)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Mexico

• Ratification: 15-03-2002 (A)
• Entry into force: 15-06-2002

Mongolia

• Ratification: 16-04-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 16-07-1991

Montenegro

• Ratification: 23-10-2006 (Su)
• Entry into force: 03-06-2006

Morocco

• Ratification: 22-04-2022 (A)
• Entry into force: 22-07-2022

Namibia

• Ratification: 28-11-1994 (A)
• Entry into force: 28-02-1995

Nauru

• Signature: 12-11-2001

Nepal

• Ratification: 14-05-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 14-08-1991

Netherlands, the Kingdom of the

• Signature: 25-06-1969
• Ratification: 11-12-1978 (R)
• Entry into force: 11-03-1979

New Zealand

• Ratification: 26-05-1989 (A)
• Entry into force: 26-08-1989

Nicaragua

• Ratification: 12-03-1980 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-06-1980

Niger

• Ratification: 07-03-1986 (A)
• Entry into force: 07-06-1986

North Macedonia

• Signature: 12-12-1994
• Ratification: 12-12-1994 (R)
• Entry into force: 12-03-1995

Panama

• Signature: 27-07-1976
• Ratification: 08-03-1977 (R)
• Entry into force: 08-06-1977

Paraguay

• Ratification: 10-01-1995 (A)
• Entry into force: 10-04-1995

Peru

• Signature: 11-08-1977
• Ratification: 03-10-1980 (R)
• Entry into force: 03-01-1981

Philippines

• Signature: 19-12-1966
• Ratification: 22-08-1989 (R)
• Entry into force: 22-11-1989

Portugal

• Signature: 01-08-1978
• Ratification: 03-05-1983 (R)
• Entry into force: 03-08-1983

Republic of Korea, the

• Ratification: 10-04-1990 (A)
• Entry into force: 10-07-1990

Republic of the Congo

• Ratification: 05-10-1983 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-01-1984

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

• Ratification: 09-11-1981 (A)
• Entry into force: 09-02-1982

San Marino

• Ratification: 18-10-1985 (A)
• Entry into force: 18-01-1986

São Tomé e Principe

• Signature: 06-09-2000
• Ratification: 23-03-2017 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-06-2017

Senegal

• Signature: 06-07-1970
• Ratification: 13-02-1978 (R)
• Entry into force: 13-05-1978

Serbia

• Signature: 12-03-2001
• Ratification: 06-09-2001 (R)
• Entry into force: 06-12-2001

Seychelles

• Ratification: 05-05-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-08-1992

Sierra Leone

• Ratification: 23-08-1996 (A)
• Entry into force: 23-11-1996

Slovakia

• Ratification: 28-05-1993 (Su)
• Entry into force: 01-01-1993

Somalia

• Ratification: 24-01-1990 (A)
• Entry into force: 24-04-1990

South Africa

• Ratification: 28-08-2002 (A)
• Entry into force: 28-11-2002

Suriname

• Ratification: 28-12-1976 (A)
• Entry into force: 28-03-1977

Tajikistan

• Ratification: 04-01-1999 (A)
• Entry into force: 04-04-1999

Togo

• Ratification: 30-03-1988 (A)
• Entry into force: 30-06-1988

Tunisia

• Ratification: 29-06-2011 (A)
• Entry into force: 29-09-2011

Turkmenistan

• Ratification: 01-05-1997 (A)
• Entry into force: 01-08-1997

Ukraine

• Ratification: 25-07-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-10-1991

Uruguay

• Signature: 21-02-1967
• Ratification: 01-04-1970 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976

Uzbekistan

• Ratification: 28-09-1995 (A)
• Entry into force: 28-12-1995

Yugoslavia (< 25-06-1991)

• Signature: 14-03-1990

Zambia

• Ratification: 10-04-1984 (A)
• Entry into force: 10-07-1984

Austria

• Signature: 10-12-1973
• Ratification: 10-12-1987 (R)
• Entry into force: 10-03-1988
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  10-12-1987
  On the understanding that, further to the provisions of article 5 (2) of the Protocol, the Committee provided for in Article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has been ascertained that the same matter has not been examined by the European Commission on Human Rights established by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Chile

• Ratification: 27-05-1992 (A)
• Entry into force: 27-08-1992
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  27-05-1992
  In recognizing the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals, it is the understanding of the Government of Chile that this competence applies in respect of acts occurring after the entry into force for that State of the Optional Protocol or, in any event, to acts which began after 11 March 1990.

Croatia

• Ratification: 12-10-1995 (A)
• Entry into force: 12-01-1996
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  12-10-1995
  The Republic of Croatia interprets article 1 of this Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Croatia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Croatia. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol, the Republic of Croatia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Denmark

• Signature: 20-03-1968
• Ratification: 06-01-1972 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  06-01-1972
  With reference to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), the Government of Denmark makes a reservation with respect to the Competence of the Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under other procedures of international investigation.

El Salvador

• Signature: 21-09-1967
• Ratification: 06-06-1995 (R)
• Entry into force: 06-09-1995
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  06-06-1995
  [...] That its provisions mean that the competence of the Human Rights Committee is recognized solely to receive and consider communications from individuals solely and exclusively in those situations, events, cases, omissions and legal occurrences or acts the execution of which began after the date of deposit of the instrument of ratification, that is, those which took place three months after the date of the deposit, pursuant to article 9, paragraph 2, of the Protocol; the Committee being also without competence to examine communications and/or complaints which have been submitted to other procedures of international investigation or settlement.

France

• Ratification: 17-02-1984 (A)
• Entry into force: 17-05-1984
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  17-02-1984
  France interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the French Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. With regard to article 7, France's accession to the Optional Protocol should not be interpreted as implying any change in its position concerning the resolution referred to in that article. France makes a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2(a), specifying that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Germany

• Ratification: 25-08-1993 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-11-1993
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  25-08-1993
  The Federal Republic of Germany formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) to the effect that the competence of the Committee shall not apply to communications a) which have already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, or b) by means of which a violation of rights is reprimanded having its origin in events occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic of Germany c) by means of which a violation of article 26 of the [said Covenant] is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant.

Guatemala

• Ratification: 28-11-2000 (A)
• Entry into force: 28-02-2001
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  28-11-2000
  The Republic of Guatemala recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic who claim to be victims of a violation by Guatemala of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant relating to acts, omissions, situations or events occurring after the date on which the Optional Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Guatemala or to decisions resulting from acts, omissions, situations or events after that date.

Guyana

• Ratification: 05-01-1999 (A)
• Entry into force: 05-04-1999
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: Yes

• reservation
  05-01-1999
  [...] Guyana re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 6 thereof with the result that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications from any persons who is under sentence of death for the offences of murder and treason in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, detention, trial, conviction, sentence or execution of the death sentence and any matter connected therewith. Accepting the principle that States cannot generally use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Guyana stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Guyana and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.

  objection to reservation

  Objection Germany, 26-08-1999

  The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the decision of the Government of Guyana to reaccede to the Optional Protocol it holds the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied to individuals who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death. Furthermore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation of an international human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under a far reaching reservation may set a bad precedent. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Federal Republic of Germany and Guyana.

  Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 22-10-1999

  " [...] 2. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation, which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death, raises doubts as to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. 3. The Government of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of the Optional Protocol [to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. 4. Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with reservations, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by Guyana circumvents such well-established rules. 5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Guyana.

  Objection Spain, 01-12-1999

  The Government of the Kingdom of Spain considers that this reservation raises doubts about the commitment of the Republic of Guyana to the purpose and goal of the Optional Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual with regard to the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation, on the other hand, seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana towards individuals who are under sentence of death. The Government of Spain also has doubts about the correctness of the procedure followed by the Government of Guyana, inasmuch as denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by re-accession to it with a reservation prejudices the ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights. Consequently, the Government of Spain objects to the aforesaid reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Guyana to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not prevent the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Guyana.

  Objection France, 28-01-2000

  [...] While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol 'at any time', with the denunciation taking effect 'three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General', denunciation of the Protocol may not in any case be used by a State Party for the purpose of formulating reservations to the Covenant well after the party has signed, ratified or acceded thereto. Such a practice would call into question international commitments by a sort of abuse of process; it would be a clear violation of the principle of good faith that prevails in international law and would be incompatible with the rule of pacta sunt servanda. The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same instrument but with a reservation) cannot but elicit a negative reaction. Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its objection to the reservation made by Guyana.

  Objection Finland, 17-03-2000

  The Government of Finland is of the view that denying the rights recognised in the Optional Protocol from individuals under the most severe sentence is in contradiction with the object and purpose of the said Protocol. Furthermore, the Government of Finland wishes to express its serious concern as to the procedure followed by Guyana, of denouncing the Optional Protocol (to which it did not have any reservations) followed by an immediate re-accession with a reservation. The Government of Finland is of the view that such a procedure is highly undesirable as circumventing the rule of the law of treaties that prohibits the formulation of reservations after accession. The Government of Finland therefore objects to the reservation made by the Government of Guyana to the said Protocol. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between Guyana and Finland. The Optional Protocol will thus become operative between the two states without Guyana benefitting from the reservation.

  Objection Sweden, 27-04-2000

  The Government of Sweden has examined the reservation to article 1 made by the Government of Guyana at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol. The Government of Sweden notes that the Government of Guyana accepts the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, and that it stresses that its reservation in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant. Nevertheless, the Government of Sweden has serious doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Guyana. While article 12, paragraph 1 of the Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol "at any time", the denunciation may in no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of formulating reservations to that instrument after having re-acceeded to it. Such a practice would constitute a misuse of the procedure and would be manifestly contrary to the principle of good faith. It further contravenes the rule of pacta sunt servanda. As such, it undermines the basis of international treaty law and the protection of human rights. The Government of Sweden therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over this method of proceeding. Furthermore, the reservation seeks to limit the international obligations of Guyana towards individuals under sentence of death. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the right to life is fundamental and that the death penalty cannot be accepted. It is therefore of utmost importance that states that persist in this practice refrain from further weakening the position of that group of individuals.

  Objection Poland, 08-08-2000

  The Government of the Republic of Poland believes that this reservation seeks to deny the benefits of the Optional Protocol towards a group of individuals under the sentence of death. This reservation is contrary to the object and purpose of the Protocol which is to strengthen the position of individuals in respect of the human rights protected by the Covenant. Furthermore the Government of the Republic of Poland considers the procedure followed by the Government of the Republic of Guyana in the denunciation of the Optional Protocol, and its subsequent re-accession with reservation as not consistent with the law of treaties and clearly undermining the Protocol. The Government of the Republic of Poland therefore objects to the above mentioned reservation made by the Government of the Republic of Guyana. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Guyana.

Iceland

• Ratification: 22-08-1979 (A)
• Entry into force: 22-11-1979
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  22-08-1979
  Iceland [...] accedes to the said Protocol subject to a reservation, with reference to article 5, paragraph 2, with respect to the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter is being examined or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Other provisions of the Covenant shall be inviolably observed.

Ireland

• Ratification: 08-12-1989 (A)
• Entry into force: 08-03-1990
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  08-12-1989
  Article 5, paragraph 2 Ireland does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication from an individual if the matter has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Italy

• Signature: 30-04-1976
• Ratification: 15-09-1978 (R)
• Entry into force: 15-12-1978
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  15-09-1978
  The Italian Republic ratifies the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it being understood that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee provided for in article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Kazakhstan

• Signature: 25-09-2007
• Ratification: 30-06-2009 (R)
• Entry into force: 30-09-2009
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  30-06-2009
  The Republic of Kazakhstan, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Kazakhstan concerning actions and omissions by the State authorities or acts or decisions adopted by them following the entry into force of this Optional Protocol in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Luxembourg

• Ratification: 18-08-1983 (A)
• Entry into force: 18-11-1983
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  18-08-1983
  The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Malta

• Ratification: 13-09-1990 (A)
• Entry into force: 13-12-1990
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  13-09-1990
  1. Malta accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol mean that the Committee established by article 28 of the Covenant, shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 2. The Government of Malta interprets Article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of Malta who claim to be victims of a violation by Malta of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for Malta, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date.

Moldova

• Signature: 16-09-2005
• Ratification: 23-01-2008 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-04-2008
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  23-01-2008
  Until the full re-establishment of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova, the provisions of the [Protocol] will be applied only on the territory controlled effectively by the authorities of the Republic of Moldova. The Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to examine communications from individuals referring to violations of any of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights committed until the date of the enter into force of the present Protocol for the Republic of Moldova. According to the Article 5 paragraph (2) letter a) of the Protocol: the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined by another international specialized body.

Norway

• Signature: 20-03-1968
• Ratification: 13-09-1972 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  13-09-1972
  Subject to the following reservation to article 5, paragraph 2: "[...] The Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter has already been examined under other procedures of international investigation or settlement."

Poland

• Ratification: 07-11-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 07-02-1992
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  07-11-1991
  Poland accedes to the Protocol while making a reservation that would exclude the procedure set out in article 5 (2) (a), in cases where the matter has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Romania

• Ratification: 20-07-1993 (A)
• Entry into force: 20-10-1993
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  20-07-1993
  Romania considers that, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Protocol, the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider communications from an individual if the matter is being or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Russian Federation

• Ratification: 01-10-1991 (A)
• Entry into force: 01-01-1992
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  01-10-1991
  The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, pursuant to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, in respect of situations or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the USSR. The Soviet Union also proceeds from the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communications unless it has been ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that the individual in question has exhausted all available domestic remedies.

Slovenia

• Ratification: 16-07-1993 (A)
• Entry into force: 16-10-1993
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  16-07-1993
  The Republic of Slovenia interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Slovenia who claim to be victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts or omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Republic of Slovenia, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2(a) of the Optional Protocol, the Republic of Slovenia specifies that the Human Rights Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Spain

• Ratification: 25-01-1985 (A)
• Entry into force: 25-04-1985
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  25-01-1985
  The Spanish Government accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of that Protocol mean that the Human Rights Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter has not been or is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Sri Lanka

• Ratification: 03-10-1997 (A)
• Entry into force: 03-01-1998
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  03-10-1997
  The Government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka pursuant to article (1) of the Optional Protocol recognises the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant which results either from acts, omissions, developments or events occurring after the date on which the Protocol entered into force for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events after that date. The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka also proceeds on the understanding that the Committee shall not consider any communication from individuals unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Sweden

• Signature: 29-09-1967
• Ratification: 06-12-1971 (R)
• Entry into force: 23-03-1976
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  06-12-1971
  On the understanding that the provisions of article 5, paragraph 2, of the Protocol signify that the Human Rights Committee provided for in article 28 of the said Covenant shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined or has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Trinidad and Tobago

• Ratification: 26-05-1998 (A)
• Entry into force: 26-08-1998
• Renunciation: 27-03-2000
• Termination: 27-06-2000
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: Yes

• reservation
  26-08-1998
  [...] Trinidad and Tobago re-accedes to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a Reservation to article 1 thereof to the effect that the Human Rights Committee shall not be competent to receive and consider communications relating to any prisoner who is under sentence of death in respect of any matter relating to his prosecution, his detention, his trial, his conviction, his sentence or the carrying out of the death sentence on him and any matter connected therewith. Accepting the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago stresses that its Reservation to the Optional Protocol in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant, including its undertaking to respect and ensure to all individuals within the territory of Trinidad and Tobago and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the Covenant (in so far as not already reserved against) as set out in article 2 thereof, as well as its undertaking to report to the Human Rights Committee under the monitoring mechanism established by article 40 thereof.

  objection to reservation

  Objection Denmark, 06-08-1999

  The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark finds that the reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. The reservation seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death. The purpose of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is not in conformity with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. The procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with a reservation circumvents the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Norway, 06-08-1999

  The Government of Norway considers that the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol is to contribute to securing the compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by strengthening the position of the individual under the Covenant. Due to the universality of all Human Rights, the right to petition, which is enshrined in article 1 of the Optional Protocol, must apply to all individuals that are subject to the State Party's jurisdiction. Further, denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a vulnerable group of individuals will contribute to further weakening of that group's position which the Government of Norway considers to be contrary to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. Further, the Government of Norway is concerned with regard to the procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago. The Government of Norway considers the denunciation of the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession upon which a reservation is entered, as a circumvention of established rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the submission of reservations after ratification. For these reasons, the Government of Norway objects to the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of Norway and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Netherlands, the Kingdom of the, 06-08-1999

  1. [...] 2. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is of the view that this reservation, which seeks to limit the obligations of the reserving State towards individuals under sentence of death, raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. 3. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers that the purpose of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. Denying the benefits of the Optional Protocol in relation to the Covenant to a group of individuals under the most severe sentence is fundamentally in conflict with the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol. 4. Also the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago, of denouncing the Optional Protocol followed by a re-accession with reservations, as contrary to the rules of the law of treaties that prohibit the formulation of reservations after ratification. The procedure followed by Trinidad and Tobago circumvents such well-established rules. 5. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 6. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Germany, 13-08-1999

  The purpose of the Protocol is to strengthen the position of the individual under the Covenant. While the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany welcomes the decision of the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to reaccede to the Optional Protocol it holds the view that the benefits of the Optional Protocol should not be denied to individuals who are under the most severe sentence, the sentence of death. Furthermore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is of the view that denunciation of an international human rights instrument followed by immediate reaccession under a far reaching reservation may set a bad precedent. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany objects to the reservation. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between the Federal Republic of Germany and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Sweden, 17-08-1999

  The Government of Sweden notes that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago accepts the principle that States cannot use the Optional Protocol as a vehicle to enter reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights itself, and it stresses that its reservation in no way detracts from its obligations and engagements under the Covenant. Nevertheless the Government of Sweden has serious doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol succeeded by re-accession with a reservation undermines the basis of international treaty law as well as the international protection of human rights. The Government of Sweden therefore wishes to declare its grave concern over this method of proceeding. Furthermore the reservation seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under sentence to death. The Government of Sweden is of the view that the right to life is fundamental and that the death penalty cannot be accepted. It is therefore of utmost importance that states that persist in this practice refrain from further weakening the position of that group of individuals.

  Objection Ireland, 23-08-1999

  1. [..] 2. The Government of Ireland is of the view that this reservation raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol, which is to strengthen the position of the individual in respect of the rights protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death. 3. The Government of Ireland also has doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeeded by re-accession with a reservation, compromises the ratification process and undermines the International protection of human rights. 4. The Government of Ireland therefore objects to the aforementioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 5. The objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between Ireland and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Spain, 25-08-1999

  The Government of the Kingdom of Spain believes that this reservation casts doubt on the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol, which is clearly to strengthen the individual's position with respect to the rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On the contrary, the aim of the reservation is to limit the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death. The Government of the Kingdom of Spain also has reservations about whether the Government of Trinidad and Tobago has followed the proper procedure; the denunciation of the Optional Protocol, followed by re-accession to it with a reservation, prejudices the ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights. Accordingly, the Government of Spain objects to this reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection does not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol as between the Kingdom of Spain and Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection France, 09-09-1999

  [...]While article 12, paragraph 1, of the Protocol provides that any State Party may denounce the Protocol "at any time" and that the denunciation shall take effect "three months after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General", the denunciation of the Protocol may in no case be used by a State Party for the sole purpose of formulating reservations to that instrument after having signed, ratified or acceded to it. Such a practice would undermine international commitments by constituting a form of misuse of procedure, would be manifestly contrary to the principle of good faith prevailing in international law and would contravene the rule of pacta sunt servanda. The means used (denunciation and accession on the same day to the same instrument, but with a reservation) cannot but prompt a negative reaction, irrespective of the doubts which may arise as to the compatibility of this reservation with the goal and purpose of the treaty. Consequently, the Government of the French Republic expresses its disapproval of the reservation formulated by Trinidad and Tobago.

  Objection Italy, 17-09-1999

  The Government of the Italian Republic finds that the reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its re-accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raises doubts as to the commitment of Trinidad and Tobago to the object and purpose of the Optional Protocol which is to strengthen the position of the individual in respect of the rights under the Covenant. The reservation on the contrary seeks to limit the international obligations of Trinidad and Tobago towards individuals under sentence of death. The Government of the Italian Republic also has doubts as to the propriety of the procedure followed by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago in that denunciation of the Optional Protocol, succeded by a re-accession with a reservation compromises the ratification process and undermines the international protection of human rights. The Government of the Italian Republic therefore objects to the afore-mentioned reservation made by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This objection shall not preclude the entry into force of the Optional Protocol between Italy and Trinidad and Tobago.

Türkiye

• Signature: 03-02-2004
• Ratification: 24-11-2006 (R)
• Entry into force: 24-02-2007
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  24-11-2006
  The Republic of Turkey declares that the three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights shall also apply to the present Optional Protocol. The three declarations and the reservation made by the Republic of Turkey to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights read as follows: The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement its obligations under the Covenant in accordance to the obligations under the Charter of the United Nations (especially Article 1 and 2 thereof). The Republic of Turkey declares that it will implement the provisions of this Covenant only to the States with which it has diplomatic relations. The Republic of Turkey declares that this Convention is ratified exclusively with regard to the national territory where the Constitution and the legal and administrative order of the Republic of Turkey are applied. The Republic of Turkey reserves the right to interpret and apply the provisions of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in accordance with the related provisions and rules of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey and the Treaty of Lausanne of 24 July 1923 and its Appendixes. The Republic of Turkey interprets article 1 of the Protocol as giving the Committee the competence to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Turkey who claim to be the victims of a violation by the Republic of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. The Republic of Turkey formulates a reservation concerning article 5 paragraph 2 (a) of the Protocol to the effect that the competence of the Committee: a) shall not apply to communications from individuals if the same matter has already been considered or is being considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. b) shall be limited to communications concerning alleged violations which result either from acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey, or from a decision relating to acts, omissions, developments or events that may occur within the national boundaries of the territory of the Republic of Turkey after the date on which the Protocol enters into force for the Republic of Turkey. c) shall not apply to communications by means of which a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is reprimanded, if and insofar as the reprimanded violation refers to rights other than those guaranteed under the aforementioned Covenant.

Uganda

• Ratification: 14-11-1995 (A)
• Entry into force: 14-02-1996
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  14-11-1995
  Article 5 The Republic of Uganda does not accept the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider a communication under the provisions of article 5 paragraph 2 from an individual if the matter in question has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Venezuela

• Signature: 15-11-1976
• Ratification: 10-05-1978 (R)
• Entry into force: 10-08-1978
• Reservations / Declarations: Yes
• Objections: No

• reservation
  10-05-1978
  Article 60, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Republic of Venezuela establishes that: "No person shall be convicted in criminal trial unless he has first been personally notified of the charges and heard in the manner prescribed by law. Persons accused of an offence against the res publica may be tried in absentia, with the guarantees and in the manner prescribed by law". Venezuela is making this reservation because article 14, paragraph 3 (d), of the Covenant makes no provision for persons accused of an offence against the res publica to be tried in absentia.